Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak) : Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance
to confer on this discussion with his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark
and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)? His hon. Friend said last week :

Column 329

"It is an unacceptable position that a first
time tenant, whether they are a conventional two children, married family,
a single mum with three children or a single person with mental illness,
goes to what may, in many cases, be brand new housing stock, when over the
other side of the road are people who have been overcrowded for 30 years,
paid their rent on time and cannot be moved".

Mr. Rendel : I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that point. I
was just about to come to it, but, unfortunately, Conservative Members have
a tendency to break in just before one reaches the point that would answer
the question.

There is a need for change, not necessarily to current legislation, but
certainly to the way in which it is implemented. Authorities up and down
the country are avoiding the problem that the hon. Member for High Peak
(Mr. Hendry) just mentioned. It is perfectly possible to use a cascade
system for the allocation of housing, so that the newest and best housing
goes to those who are waiting to move from perhaps rather less good
housing. The slightly less good housing could then be used for those who
are immediately homeless and are coming off the homeless list.

That is being done already in various local authorities, and there is no
reason why it should not be done in all of them. If one uses such a system,
one avoids the problems of envy that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Therefore, my hon. Friend is quite right to say that changes are needed to
bring that system into effect wherever it is not being carried out now.

Some further changes are also needed. As has been mentioned already, we
need to change the system for emergency accommodation, particularly in cold
weather and particularly outside London. Far too many people who lie on our
streets in shop doorways, cold and sometimes near to death, are not being
given even emergency accommodation outside our great city.

There is also a need to look into the problem of 16 and 17-year-olds out on
the streets, who are not thought of as vulnerable and therefore not a
priority, and who, particularly if they are female, are liable to be
dragged into prostitution. That is not a situation that the Government or
any Government should allow to continue.

If "back to basics" in housing means anything, it surely means back to the
basics of four walls, a roof and security of tenure. It is that last point
that the Government have forgotten.

Interestingly, the Government got one thing right in their housing policy a
year or two ago when they began to provide extra money for the purchase by
housing associations of second-hand housing, a policy that worked well for
a time. A number of houses were bought up, which to some extent stopped the
slide in the housing market and meant that some accommodation was brought
back into use much more rapidly than it otherwise would have been to house
the homeless and those at that time on waiting lists.

That was a policy that we in Newbury commended, although we were not a
Conservative-controlled authority at that time. It is a policy to which the
Government would have done well to stick. Unfortunately, it has now come to
an end. It does not work in all parts of the country, but it works in some.

It is odd that, in a sense, it is exactly the reverse of Westminster city
council's policy. Westminster city council sells properties that were in
the public sector to

Column 330

private owners. Under the other policy,
housing associations bought properties that had been owner-occupied for
those on the waiting lists who desperately needed them. How the Government
can think that both policies were right I am not sure. It is similar to
what I described a moment ago--when, wearing their planning hat, they
reversed the policy that they had adopted wearing their housing hat. The
Government's amendment condemns the policies of

Labour-controlled local authorities. I am interested to see that the
Government have found nothing to condemn in Liberal

Democrat-controlled authorities, such as my own, whose housing policy, I am
glad to report, the Department of the Environment has frequently praised.

However, the Government's amendment is hypocritical, because they are
responsible for the worst housing management. Let us look at the facts. In
1993, there were 864,000 empty properties. If we divide that up into the
various sectors, 1.9 per cent. of council houses were empty, 2.4 per cent.
of housing association homes were empty, 5 per cent. of the private stock
was empty, but, worst of all, 6.8 per cent. of the Government's stock was
empty. The Government are three and a half times as bad as local
authorities at managing their stock. That shows the sheer hypocrisy of the
Government's amendment. This debate is about temporary accommodation and
the homeless. Temporary accommodation is what we all like when we go on
holiday. What the Government need to realise is that homelessness is no
holiday.

6.3 pm

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) : A great plethora of figures has been
bandied around tonight by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Naturally, the Opposition will not accept any figures with which they do
not agree. I do not believe that the Department of the Environment produces
one set of figures for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and another for the
Government, but if the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who sadly is
not here at the moment, was trying to suggest that Hackney performs better
than Westminster in maintaining its houses, he must be joking, because no
one on this earth will believe that.

Rather than dealing with facts and figures, may I suggest something easier,
particularly for those Opposition Members who do not know London very well
because their constituencies are far away and they do not spend a lot of
time in the centre of London? All they have to do is go out of the door,
turn left, walk for a few minutes, cross Lambeth bridge and walk down to
the imperial war museum. On a nice day, it is a pleasant stroll.

Across the road, hidden behind a tall modern tower block called Lambeth
towers, they will see an old Lambeth-owned council estate. It is one of
those estates built by the great gerrymander Herbert Morrison. At the time,
they were well built, and, as he put it, he built them to build the Tories
out. He did not say Tories ; he used another word which would be
unparliamentary.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : When I go home, I walk to
Charing Cross tube station. If I walked a little further up the Strand, I
would find, sadly, despite what the Minister said, a number of people
sleeping in doorways. They sleep in doorways in very cold weather, and they
have no other accommodation. That is quite a common

Column 331

sight in various parts of central London,
but it was not the case before 1979. It might be useful if the hon.
Gentleman took a look tonight.

Mr. Atkinson : I too walk around that part of London. People have
slept rough of their own volition in that area for many years.
[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen. For those who need them,
beds are available.

May I continue my walk south of the Thames into Lambeth, where that Herbert
Morrison block is to be found, which, in its day, was well built? I suggest
that hon. Members wander round that block. When it was built, it provided
ideal homes for families. It was low-rise and looked out over little
gardens. The trees that once adorned the gardens of the 19th-century houses
that were whacked down to build it were retained to make a nice backdrop
for the families.

Look at that block today. Several of the flats are boarded up, no doubt
awaiting maintenance. I went there today and spoke to a lady who said that
the flat next door to hers had been empty for four years. Other flats were
occupied but had boarded-up windows. Paving stones were broken and
dangerous, and litter and cans disfigured the courtyards. From some flats,
where I am told squatters still live, came the sound of deafening reggae
music.

That block is 10 minutes away from the House. Hon. Members can go there and
see the effect of bad management by a local authority. That little estate
could be turned into a paradise if Lambeth council so wished. If it had
been properly managed and not been allowed to decline over the years,
families would have volunteered to live there. If it had been sold to the
private sector, those flats would be advertised in The Sunday Times as 10
minutes away from the West End and the City. That is why they are desirable
apartments. In past decades, that estate has lacked proper and competent
management. That property is owned by Lambeth council, which has spent its
time and money on crackpot schemes, about which we all know. It is a shame
that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who speaks for
the Opposition on transport matters and who was a Lambeth councillor, is
not here tonight. She is responsible for shipping affairs, but God help the
British Navy if she were in charge of it.

Lambeth council has squandered money over the years on its crackpot
schemes. An investigation costing £20 million is under way into money
allegedly unlawfully spent on civil engineering projects. It is alleged
that £800,000 has been overpaid to some Lambeth teachers. That would
have done up some of the flats on that estate. We have heard of housing
benefit fraud involving 750 members of staff, and there is nearly £30
million of uncollected rent.

From a sedentary position, I heard the hon. Member for Workington (Mr.
Campbell-Savours) comment on London housing. I have had first-hand
experience, because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central
(Sir P. Beresford), I happened to be a member of Wandsworth council. I was
pleased and surprised to be part of the team that had to sort out the mess
left by Labour.

To recap one or two of my hon. Friend's points, the Labour party had a
policy of municipalisation under which the chairman went about on a bike,
writing down which houses the council should buy. Once we had chucked out

Column 332

Labour, I was given the job of chairing a
committee to dispose of those houses. I could not go around on a bike, as
there were too many houses involved--there were nearly 2,000 boarded-up
houses in the borough of Wandsworth, many in the leafy streets of Putney,
when we took over.

It was amazing that the council did not know what it had bought--we did not
know to whom the boarded-up houses belonged. As chairman of the disposal
committee, I was given the task of advertising in the local paper, asking
anyone who lived next door to a boarded-up house please to get in touch
with the council, because we were not sure whether it might belong to us.
We found several dozen properties in Battersea and Putney which the council
had purchased but then forgotten. We strongly suspected that the owner of
one property had been paid twice for it--he must have thought that he had
struck it lucky.

Labour spent millions on nutty schemes in Wandsworth and, as a consequence,
was unable to do up its houses. It boarded them up and left them empty for
many years, during which time they became eyesores. Labour had spent the
money on buying the properties and did not have sufficient money to
maintain its existing council properties. My hon. Friend the Member for
Croydon, Central explained exactly what happened.

The Labour council's gerrymandering scheme went wrong, because the tenants
rose up and chucked out the Labour party. I was standing in a ward in which
nearly 80 per cent. of the voters were council tenants and, as much to my
surprise as to anyone else's, I was elected, because the tenants were fed
up with inadequate and poor maintenance.

It was not only Wandsworth's Labour council which had municipalised and
sought to gerrymander--the Greater London council was also in the game,
trying to help the Putney Labour party keep Putney Labour. Of course, the
hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) was involved in the Putney Labour party in
those days.

The Labour council built the Roehampton estate. Why? It is a tower block
estate on the edge of Richmond park. It was not built to disfigure the
skyline, which it ruined anyway ; it was not built to provide convenient
homes because the flats were high rise ; and it was not built because of
its convenient location. The council dumped thousands of people miles from
any jobs, in an area with virtually no public transport. They were stuck in
a wasteland because the council wanted to increase the number of Labour
voters in that part of London.

When the GLC finally transferred all its Wandsworth properties to
Wandsworth council, councillors were puzzled because no rent was
forthcoming from two of the blocks. Eventually, someone went to see the two
blocks that the GLC had given us and discovered that the blocks did not
exist--the GLC had had no idea of what was going on. It is easy to score
points off loony left councillors in London--it is all good knockabout
stuff--but Labour Members should take my advice and walk across the Thames.
Despite the rhetoric and the jokes, I am angry that families have to live
on the Lambeth estate in unacceptable conditions merely because of the
idleness, ineptitude and corruption of a bunch of Labour councillors.

Column 333

6.13 pm

Mr. Robert Litherland (Manchester, Central) : I shall be brief and
confine my remarks to my own city.

Housing in Manchester, as in every other major city, is under extreme
pressure for the simple reason that, since the Conservative party took
office, we have witnessed a decline in capital resources. That decline has
brought in its wake a deterioration in housing provision and conditions the
length and breadth of the city. The central Government allocation for
housing investment programmes has been severely cut and, as night follows
day, the local authority cannot meet the needs of its citizens. In 1992-93,
our housing improvement bid was £131 million and the allocation was
£35.8 million. In 1993-94, the bid was 28 per cent. of the previous
year's--we submitted a request for £40 million but received only
£36 million. In 1994-95, the bid was treated in exactly the same way--
a bid for £46.8 million was met with an allocation of £29
million. One does not need to be a mathematician to realise that the
resources are not sufficient to provide decent living accommodation for the
people of Manchester.

I stress the fact that there is a tremendous need for housing and housing
improvements. It will be possible to rectify the situation only with
investment from central Government and the private sector, as has now been
acknowledged by Manchester city council. The Government must act as a
catalyst, but I regret to say that they are failing miserably in that role.

The local authority in Manchester has stressed time and again that
additional resources are essential if we are to get off the treadmill. If
the resources are not forthcoming, things can only get worse. If we bear in
mind that the council estimates that £300 million is needed for
private sector improvements and £500 million for public sector
improvements, we get some idea of the scale of the problem facing the
providers of housing for those in need. Because of the widening gap between
needs and resources, Manchester city council has had to take a long look at
the problem and has come up with what is termed a corporate housing
strategy.

The strategy recognises the need for a fundamental review of the council's
own role in the housing market. It has taken cognisance of the limited
resources and of the necessity to stimulate private sector investment. Its
aim is to deliver an effective housing service. The Manchester strategy has
also taken into consideration the changing tenure patterns and the trends
which have led to the rethink of housing policy. Gone are the days when the
direct works department built 1,300 houses, employed 5,000 workers and
1,000 apprentices, provided jobs for the disabled and saved the ratepayers
money--we now have a new ball game.

The Government's financial controls have led to a severe reduction in local
authority housing in recent years. Private investment has been directed
towards houses for sale, not towards houses for rent. Housing associations,
which once had a minor role to play in the provision of housing, were given
a new status by the Government but, as their finances dry up, their
properties in Manchester are boarded up, vandalised or used for the illegal
dumping of waste or they become havens for undesirables. That is a
sacrilege while people are waiting for a roof over their heads.

Column 334

There have always been changes in housing.
The mean terraced streets of houses at the turn of the century, which were
all owned by private landlords, gave way to the great slum clearances which
resulted in monolithic council estates. At one point in the 1970s,
Manchester city council owned about 90,000 properties.

However, there have been rapid changes in the past 10 years. We have
witnessed a decrease in the number of houses to rent in the private and
public sector. The right-to-buy policy has taken the more desirable houses
from the pool of properties on offer to waiting list applicants. People do
not buy the flats that we are knocking down--the system-built rubbish. They
buy council houses that overlook golf clubs, and so on. Those are the
desirable properties.

Sir Paul Beresford : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Litherland : No ; I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman took
40 minutes of precious time.

We have witnessed the demolition of system-built obscenities that have
blighted the city. That has also reduced the relets. The city, in its
strategy statement, welcomes the diversity of tenure and of choice, but I
warn the city council that it must never lose sight of the fact that any
change must be for the benefit of people.

The choice of increasing ownership is useless if a family cannot pay the
mortgage payments, suffers repossession and has to turn to a local
authority for help. We have witnessed the increase in homelessness. What
choice do homeless people have? How does the council tackle that acute
problem without adequate resources? The number of households who are
admitted to be in priority need has more than doubled. The demand for
specialised homes for the elderly and disabled has trebled.

The sharp increase in homelessness has led to a 22 per cent. increase in
the number of households living in temporary accommodation. It is estimated
that 618 persons become homeless every month in Greater Manchester and most
of them gravitate towards the city. That is not one of the features that we
are proud of. We do not show the International Olympic Committee the people
sleeping rough in the streets of Manchester.

Patterns have changed, but not for the better. Whatever imaginative
policies the council pursues in response to the ever-changing scenario, the
financial resources must be made available to meet the needs. Those needs
are great. The council points scheme alone, shows that 20,000 households
from the waiting list are classified as being in housing need.

Different types of accommodation are needed to meet the demand from single
parents and as a result of the break-up of families. Overcrowding is now
estimated at 39 per cent., and that has coincided with the right to buy and
the reduction in the availability of family housing. More than 13,000 good-
quality houses have been bought by tenants, which has added to the problem
of diminishing stock. Manchester's structure and population change
continually. The decline in population to about 400,000 does not mean that
the pressure on housing has decreased--quite the opposite. We have more low
-income families and more vulnerable and immobile households and the demand
for affordable houses to rent is increasing.

Column 335

Poverty adds to the problem, as does
unemployment, especially in the inner-city area. In the inner-city area of
Manchester, unemployment is well above the national average. Male
unemployment is 30 per cent. That should take the smirk off the face of the
hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford). There has been an
increase in the number of households who receive free school meals and in
the number of households who receive benefits.

Those are the people who do not have a choice. They are denied access to
home ownership. Those are the victims of the Government policy. Demand
outstrips supply at every turn and the providers are not providing.

When a city council's housing stock decreases by 3,000 in one year and the
replacement is only 874, and those dwellings are built, not by the city
council, but by a housing association, that proves that there is no support
from the Government for a serious house-building programme.

The city council's ideas and aims are well-intentioned and thought out and
they are enshrined in six key objectives. I will quote from its report :

"1. To provide a choice of desirable and affordable housing to improve the
quality of life for current residents and to encourage people to come and
live in Manchester.

2. To make special provision for people who are homeless or inadequately
housed and for people with special needs.

Those objectives are commendable but, whatever the strategy undertaken to
remedy the crisis in Manchester or any of the major cities, we shall always
return to the dependency on the Government for adequate levels of funding
resources. That is where the exercise is flawed. We have only to consider
the Government's appalling housing record to realise that the objectives of
the Manchester city council strategy for housing will remain just a well-
intentioned programme of words and figures in a well-presented brochure and
that none of the aims for decent housing will materialise for the people.
If they have to rely on the Government to make them work, it will all
remain a pipe dream.

The Government have lost credibility. The Government cannot be trusted.

6.25 pm

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : We should consider why the market
for housing, compared with other markets that meet people's needs,
manifests such desperate mismanagement and terrible shortages. Surely that
is so largely because the property market is bedevilled by legislation
which has been passed by the House at different times in the past few
years.

Planning controls are one type of legislation ; they have limited the
amount of land available on which to build housing. Secondly, controlled
rents have meant that, for many decades, low rents gave no incentive to
people in the private sector to provide or recycle property. Thirdly, the
Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which was passed by the Labour
Government, increased enormously the number of people who flooded into
inner cities, especially London, and put enormous strains on the housing
market there.

Column 336

It is to the credit of the current Housing
Minister that he has tackled many of those problems and introduced some
imaginative policies. For example, when I was a member of Westminster city
council, we identified more than 50 acres of land in the Westminster part
of the central London catchment area alone which were derelict and could
not be built on because, for one reason or another, planning consents were
bedevilled by past legislation. There was a vast amount of housing which
had fallen into complete disrepair and where no one wished to live ; it
accounted for some of the startling figures which we are often given about
the number of empty houses. It was not so much that they were empty as that
they were uninhabitable, in the centres of cities.

The world and his wife, coming to Britain, often ended up in Westminster,
expecting to be housed by the city council, which already had to tackle an
enormous demand from the British people and from people who were long-
standing residents of Westminster or had family connections there. Children
were growing up and wanted alternative accommodation to a room in their
parents' house. That situation, coupled with the driving out of the private
landlady, who has always in the past provided short-term accommodation for
young people, many of whom are highly mobile and simply want accommodation
on a short-term basis, has made the housing problem of places such as
Westminster unique.

The policies that the Government have recently adopted, including that of
making it possible for private individuals to take in lodgers without being
bedevilled by half a dozen inspectors and to earn a modest amount of money-
-about £3,000 a year--without having to fill in complicated tax
returns, have helped to free up accommodation for many young people.

It is a fact that 35 per cent. of all the people on waiting lists are under
25, and many of them are unmarried. Many of those people would have been
willing to take a small flat or rooms in a private house if those had been
available, but they resorted to the council because there was no
alternative, especially in inner cities, as the cost of the housing
available in the private sector was beyond their means. They turned to the
council, not because they wanted council housing but because that was the
only available housing that they were able to afford.

All those factors distort many of the so-called statistics that the Labour
party likes to hurl at the Government as a testimony to their supposed
failure to provide adequate housing. It is the responsibility of everyone
in the House to ensure that those policies are reformed. The Government are
determined, and their latest consultation paper continues to meet those
problems head on, so they are to be commended.

The result of those restrictive policies has been that all sorts of
palliatives, such as housing associations, have been adopted. Although
housing associations provide low-cost housing, they do so at heavily
subsidised rates. Those subsidies would not be necessary if we freed up
some of the property suffering from planning blight, such as the enormous
number of empty dwellings over shops. The dwellings cannot be let for
residential use because, under planning regulations, the buildings are
zoned for commercial purposes. They have stood there for years becoming
derelict. I recall writing a paper on the subject back in the mid-1970s,
long before I became a Westminster

Column 337

councillor. The Government, sensibly and
commendably, are tackling the problem head on, so that is another plus for
them.

We also introduced the right to buy--a sensible policy, but one that still
deals only with those who wish to own a property. Many people are mobile
and want not property to own but property to let. No mention has yet been
made of the deplorable policies of councils such as Camden and Islington,
which in the mid to late-1970s bought whole streets of houses, boarded them
up and then let them to what became known as SLUGs, pronounced "slugs"--
short life user groups. The SLUGs in turn let the houses to their chums,
most of whom were socialists, to judge by the number of red banners that
appear down the streets at election times.

That was another distortion of the housing market, because those councils
were buying up massive areas in the inner cities and deliberately
converting them into housing for council tenants. Furthermore, much of the
housing was sub-standard, and that made it difficult for people to find
properties in the private sector. I am familiar with the situation in
Westminster, because I was on the housing committee of Westminster council
for two years, and in that time I was party to the implementation of many
Government policies, such as designated housing. I say straight away that I
have no vested interest in council housing, because I have never lived in,
rented, bought or sold council accommodation, under the right-to-buy scheme
or any other scheme. However, I have suffered from a slur put about by
Labour members of Westminster council, who deliberately asked council
officers to present them with confidential files on Conservative
councillors and Conservative Members of Parliament--I ask hon. Members to
note the word "Conservative"--who have bought freeholds in Westminster.

The council owns, or did own, a great deal of land in Westminster, for
which it obtained peppercorn rents. In an attempt to raise money to build a
large leisure centre, the Queen Mother centre, the council examined its
assets and decided to get rid of the freeholds of many of those dwellings.

One of the people who bought the freeholds was the right hon. Member for
Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but he did not feature in much of
the material printed in the newspapers early last week, because he is a
Labour Member, and the councillors concerned, Andrew Dismore and Gavin
Millar, deliberately asked the officers for files on transactions involving
Conservatives. That is a scandalous use of privilege to bring about the
disclosure of confidential file material to a national newspaper, and those
people may yet have to answer for it.

Incidentally, I must point out that the Transport and General Workers Union
bought the freehold of its building, Transport house, as did many other
commercial organisations--at the market rate. The Labour party may feel
that the report about Westminster council gives it the opportunity to run
another smear campaign. The report was leaked ; none of us has yet seen it-
-

Mr. Campbell-Savours : It is in my office.

Mrs. Gorman : We should consider carefully the people who prepared
the report. One of them, Mr. Tony Childs, who is now with the Audit
Commission, is no

Column 338

stranger to controversy, because he was the
solicitor and adviser to the hard-left Greenwich council for several years.
During that time, the council was ill advised enough not to set a rate and
it was eventually overruled by the district auditor. In the end, Greenwich
ratepayers had to pay much more than they needed to pay. Greenwich council
was also advised to have the temerity to take the Department of the
Environment to court, because it did not consider that it was getting
enough in its grant settlement.

That individual, whom I maintain is highly politically motivated, helped to
produce the report, which we are given to understand is peppered with
emotive language. That is what has given rise to the quotable quotes in the
initial report supplied to the press. We have heard the case for the
prosecution ; I am waiting to hear the case for the defence.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gorman : No, I shall not give way, because I am obeying the
request from the Chair to be as brief as possible.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It
is a precise point. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is putting
into the mouth of the person to whom she referred the comments of Mr.
Magill, the district auditor. I know, because I was the objector, all the
reports are in my office and I have read them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is certainly not a point of order for the
Chair.

Mrs. Gorman : While we are on that subject, Mr. Magill was put into
the job by Touche Ross, a firm that, by prolonging the inquiry over many
years, has been claiming £250 an hour for every hour served by him.
Westminster people have also had to fork out for that. I have dealt with
the difficult problems of Westminster council, and I shall now deal with
its extremely credible record both of housing homeless people and of
dealing with the unique problems of the area. Only 20 per cent. of the
people of Westminster own their own homes, compared with 60 per cent.
nationally. That means that there was an enormous gap between the people
who could afford to buy their homes and people who could find only rented

accommodation--low-income people in either council housing or housing owned
by associations such as the Peabody Trust and the Guinness Trust.

It was to deal with that deficit of middle-class, middle-income people who
could not afford to buy property in Westminster that the council decided to
implement the designated sales policy, for which there was total Government
approval. Through designated sales, many people who did not wish to buy
council property in an area that was not congenial were allowed to choose
to exercise their right to buy within a designated block, which did not
have to be in the area in which they were living.

There was also the cash incentive scheme, to which the Minister has already
referred. That allowed residents who wanted to move out, especially people
who were retiring, to use the equivalent of the rebate that they would have
received had they bought their apartment or house--but only if they were
purchasing property elsewhere. The money did not go into their pockets ;
there was no giveaway. It had to be used to find accommodation in areas
where there were properties that they found more congenial. That again is
part of Government policy.

Column 339

As a result, council tenants, housing
association tenants and people from the waiting list were able to find
accommodation under designated sales. Of all the sales under that scheme,
96 per cent. were to people whose original residential area was in
Westminster. It is not true that hundreds of people came from outside
Westminster and bought flats from the council at cheap prices.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gorman : I will not give way.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Before the hon. Gentleman begins his point of
order, let me say that I hope that it is about something on which the Chair
should rule in relation to procedures before the House. I ask the hon.
Gentleman to reflect on that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I shall certainly reflect on that matter, Mr.
Deputy Speaker. Is not it clear that in refusing to give way, the hon. Lady
recognises that there is a counter-case that she does not want to be put?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is a senior Member of the
House and has shared with me years on the Public Accounts Select Committee.
He knows that that was not a genuine point of order. I hope that in future
he will be a little more responsible.

Mrs. Gorman : If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself and not keep
interrupting me, he may get a speaking spot himself. Westminster council,
with its unique problems of large numbers of people coming into the area
and the difficulty, because of high property prices, of its own residents
being able to buy property, took part in the London mobility scheme. It was
a scheme operated between boroughs so that if people were waiting to be
housed in one borough and another borough had empty properties, boroughs
could do a swap and enable people to find accommodation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours rose --

Mrs. Gorman : It was extremely unpopular--

Mr. Peter Bottomley : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Twice, we have had examples of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell
-Savours) trying to make a point of order when he could not. There is a
constant run of sedentary interruptions making it difficult to listen to
the speech. I should be grateful if hon. Members would listen to my hon.
Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) because what she is saying
should be heard on both sides of the House.